Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 22, 1981)
The Battalion V IE WPOINT September 22,1 Slouch By Jim Earle r - ! n: “Have you noticed that it s the same ones whose rides leave early whose rides leave late for coming back?” President compared to English prime minister By DAVID BRODER WASHINGTON — In the column- 'writing business, you learn quickly to cher- ► ish — and never to ignore — coincidences. » One morning last week, a visiting British .'member of Parliament remarked that ‘■Ronald Reagan struck him, not as the king * of Capitol Hill, ” perhaps, but at least as prime minister. Barely three hours later. Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Calif.) told his col leagues in the House Democratic caucus that the main reason for their miseries in ^ the first eight months of the year was that “the Republicans basically have moved to a parliamentary system, with all the disci pline that involves.” If both a visiting parliamentarian and a leader of the opposition (Coelho is chair man of the Democratic Congressional Cam paign Committee) can see Reagan in prime ministerial guise, then it might behoove even the dullest columnist to examine the proposition. I have done so, and my conclusion is that thinking of Reagan’s government in par liamentary terms does give you some in teresting insights — but it is basically a mischievous notion. The distinction between a presidential and a prime ministerial system of leader ship is simple. (I speak with authority, hav ing just looked again at a very useful book called “Presidents and Prime Ministers,” which Richard Rose and Ezra N. Suleiman edited and the American Enterprise Insti tute published last year.) The prime minister is first among equals in a cabinet system, sharing collective re sponsibility with cabinet colleagues for the formulation of national policy. Cabinet poli cy becomes government policy through the ratification device of a disciplined party ma jority in the parliament; if discipline fails, the government falls, and everyone faces the voters. It is that simple. The president, on the other hand, has sole responsibility for the formulation of executive branch policy. But his ability to make his policy government policy de pends entirely on his political skills in per suading the independent legislators and the often recalcitrant interest group/bureaucra tic alliances to go along with his plans. In those stark and oversimplified terms, it is easy to see why both the British M.P. and Coelho might independently remark on the “prime ministerial quality” of Reagan’s presidency. Clearly, he is sharing the responsibility for basic policy formula tion with this cabinet. He said he would Warped Remember White House promises!! By JERELYN EDDINGS United Press International WASHINGTON — Some congressmen are remembering White House promises and near-promises that seem to be slipping out of the administration’s focus in light of the continued budget frenzy. And they are unhappy — they always term it “concerned” — with the new de velopments unfolding. During this summer’s budget debates. President Reagan and his top aides did a lot of listening, a good deal of nodding and made a number of promises about applying budget cuts evenhandedly. They won the support of moderate Re publicans from the Northeast and Midwest partly on the strength of those promises — along with a some heavy-handed political pressure. As a result of discussions with moderate and liberal Republicans, whose support he needed on budget votes, Reagan backed off some attempts to cut social welfare prog rams such as fuel assistance to the poor and Medicaid. The moderates thought they had rescued some federal funds — at least for fiscal 1982 — as a result of those negotiations. The administration also said publicly and privately that it would not spare the De fense Department from the next batch of budget cuts. It took a little longer to iden tify waste at the Pentagon, but they knew it was there and they would apply the same standards to the cutting military waste as they did to domestic waste, fraud and abuse. moderate House Republicans, sajj aren ’t buying that. They say theadmii Of course, they wouldn’t take any steps that would damage national security. And the moderate Republicans didn’t want them to. They just didn’t want their consti tuents to suffer unduly while the Pentagon prospered. Now, with administration plans for a second round of 1982 budget cuts to meet its original goal, those Republicans are “concerned” that the administration is backing off their summer understanding. Reagan recently announced plans to cut _ pi $2 billion from defense as part of an effort to trim another $16 billion next year. For the next three years, he proposed a $13 billion reduction in military spending, when domestic programs may be asked to cut about $75 billion. The “gypsy moths,” a group of about 30 tion must c ut $9 billion nextye^B fense or they may not support li), package. They went along with domestic spending reductions thiss — some of them hard to swallow- they are letting the president Id now they expect the evenhandei promised before. “We would he very concer administration were to saythosec incuts made in the spring were noli valid, said Rep. Carl PursellofMiclj leading “gypsy moth.” They say they believe theadmp is floating trial balloons when it delaying cost of living increaseslr| pients of Social Security, foodstampl fare and other benefit programs. And they refused to respond pul trial balloons. But the gypsy ing it clear they would like to I latest ones. What they would like, instead, administration to rememberwhatl crates saw as commitments andc with a more balanced package. have “cabinet government,” and he is doing so. He is guided by his ministers — Stock- man and Meese, by Baker and Regan, by Haig, Weinberger and Watt. That was the point the visitor from West minster noted. What Coelho focused on was the extraordinary degree of discipline that congressional Republicans have accepted — or imposed on themselves. Much ha^ been written about “defecting Democrats” giving Reagan his budget and tax victories in the House. Bi oader voting statistics Coelho col lected from Congressional Quarterly and displayed to the caucus bear out the point. Through the August recess, House Demo crats had a party unity score (on all the roll-calls on which the Democratic and Re publican majorities diverges) of 69 percent. That was as high a score as they have had in the last 15 years; it was one point below the unity score for Lyndon Johnson’s “miracle Congress" of 1965; it was seven points high er than the score they had in 1974, facing crippled Richard Nixon and unelected Jer ry Ford. But the House Republican party-unity score this year was an extraordinary 79 per cent, higher than in any year in the 1960s or 1970s and 10 points higher than the GOP average for those two decades. So both Coelho and the British M.P. are right — in one way. But they are also fun damentally wrong, because the Reagan- Republican, prime ministerial/parliamen tary system is purely a political artifact, with nothing to sustain it in the written or unwritten constitution of this land, as there is in Great Britain. It exists only because Reagan has forged what are for now powerful personal and political bonds to his cabinet and his party in Congress. He has led them by force of personality and by maintaining his hold on public opinion. But those bonds can be sus tained only if his economic program sur mounts the current wave of skepticism and his leadership continues to be proved in the budget and foreign-policy tests that lie im mediately ahead. He is only as secure governmentally as he is strong politically. What Richard Rose wrote remains true: “In the cabinet system, a prime minister’s problem is how to give direction to a gov ernment that is already there, that is, orga nized and capable of collective action. In America, by contrast, there is no collective authority ready at hand for the president’s use ... A president is required to create government. ” Aggie football team has Polish Powi Editor: With Gary Kubiak, the great quarter back of the Aggies this fall, I think of the many great Polish-American football play ers of the past: (e.g.) the immortal bronks, Nagurski of Minnesota University and Chi cago Bear’s fame. Nagurski, who was All- American, both as fullback and tackle, is rated by many experts as the top football player of all time. Johnny Lujack, is rated the greatest quarterback of all time, at Notre Dame, and another Pol-Am-Vic Janowicz, was among Ohio State’s best ever. Alex Wojciechowicz is probably the best of all time at Fordham University and Steve Bartkowski is among the greatest from the University of Califor nia Bears. The Pittsburgh Steeler lineback er, All-Pro Jack Ham, who is of Polish des cent, is one of Penn State’s greatest, along with Pro Hall of Fame’s Chuck Belnorik. Other all-time Polish football stars include Frank Tripucka, Dick Modzelewski, Ed Danowski, Bill Osmanski, Walt Michaels, and Frank Gatski. Also, Bill Swiacki and Ron Jaworski. Nearly 300 Polish-Americans have been pro football players over the years. If Kubiak lives up to his potential, the Texas Aggies could be nationally rated this fall. I humbly say — Polish Power! sincere thanks to the residents oft Mosher and Spence halls whoraiseol than $400 to help cover travel experl Reveille and Drew Laningham, tlie!| Corporal, and enabled them toatteo Boston College game. It is onlythwl Joe Kowalski Ashlabula, Ohio support of present and former studfEtf" Rev is able to represent Texas 1 fepr Funding appreciated conference, away games. The sacrite I these girls made is more than can of any student. Again, our thanks. Editor: The members of Company E-2, the Mas cot Company, would like to express their Mark F. Moi Cadet Executive Officer, Compa# 1 ■a orr.l ( By Scott McCullar The Battalion USPS 045 360 MEMBER Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Congress Editor Angelique Copeland Managing Editor Marcy Boyce City Editor Jane G. Brust Asst. City Editor Kathy O’Connell Photo Editor Greg Gammon Sports Editor Ritchie Priddy Focus Editor Cathy Saathoff Asst. Focus Editor Debbie Nelson News Editors Jennifer Afflerbach Bernie Fette, Belinda McCoy Diana Sultenfuss Staff Writers Frank L. Christlieb Randy Clements, Gave Denley, Terry Duran Nancy Floeck, Phyllis Henderson Colette Hutchings, Denise Richter, Rick Stolle Cartoonist Scott McCullar Graphic Artist Richard DeLeon Jr. Photographers Brian Tate Becky Swanson, Dave Einsel The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newpip students in reporting, editing ami photograph)' & within the Department of Communications. Questions or comments concerning any editohnl^ should he directed to the editor. LETTERS POLICY Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 length, and are subject to being cut if they are k»£ ! editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for st^ ! length, hut will make every effort to maintaindx*? intent. Each letter must also be signed, show the t>- and phone number of the writer. Columns and guest editorials are also welcome.** not subject to the same length constraints as Address all inquiries and correspondence to: Edit* Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M Ini'^ College Station, TX 77843. EDITORIAL POLICY The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper operated as a community service to Texas A&M University and Bryan-College Station. Opinions expressed in The Bat talion are those of the editor or the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Texas A&M Universi ty administrators or faculty members, or of the Board of Regents. The Battalion is published daily during Texas A4“ and spring semesters, except for holiday and exam" 1 ; periods. Mail subscriptions are $ 16.75 per semester.' 1 per school year and $35 per full year. Advertise furnished on request. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed ing, Texas A&M University, College Station, TN United Press International is entitled exclusi'ei!' use for reproduction of all news dispatches ct*®*y Bights of reproduction of all other matter heie' 11 rf! ^ v Second class postage paid at College Station. ^ ( (